The only time that Batman got his hide kicked is by the guy from the bell tower

Yeah, but my point is, people are so tough on Nolan and Bale because Batman got beat down somewhat easily by Bane (which totally made sense in the movie and with the Bane character), while a random thug mops the floor with Bats in Batman '89 and he barely puts up a fight.

Yeah, but my point is, people are so tough on Nolan and Bale because Batman got beat down somewhat easily by Bane (which totally made sense in the movie and with the Bane character), while a random thug mops the floor with Bats in Batman '89 and he barely puts up a fight.

That was only that one tough guy
After Batman came out of a wreckage of a jet Joker blew up
And walked all the way up

Yeah, but my point is, people are so tough on Nolan and Bale because Batman got beat down somewhat easily by Bane (which totally made sense in the movie and with the Bane character), while a random thug mops the floor with Bats in Batman '89 and he barely puts up a fight.

Mickey Rourke getting owned 40 minutes in Iron Man 2, GENERAL Zod getting beat up by a scientist in the opening of Man of Steel, Electro getting beaten midway through ASM2. Those are how you DON'T build up a villain, Bane crushing Batman in a Bat movie, that's how you build your most credible on screen Bat-villain post Heath's Joker. No mind games, just pure physical dominance.

I don't get the childish reasoning that it's wrong because Batman loses, it's the same kind of bs that comes out of Super-fans mouths when they get a little bit pissy because Batman has shown any sort of superiority over Superman, why would you ever want a hero to always win all the time?

Mickey Rourke getting owned 40 minutes in Iron Man 2, GENERAL Zod getting beat up by a scientist in the opening of Man of Steel, Electro getting beaten midway through ASM2. Those are how you DON'T build up a villain, Bane crushing Batman in a Bat movie, that's how you build your most credible on screen Bat-villain post Heath's Joker. No mind games, just pure physical dominance.

I don't get the childish reasoning that it's wrong because Batman loses, it's the same kind of bs that comes out of Super-fans mouths when they get a little bit pissy because Batman has shown any sort of superiority over Superman, why would you ever want a hero to always win all the time?

I just don't get your comparisson. General Zod wasn't beated by SUPERMAN in the beginning so your comparisson is baseless cause the other two examples had nothing to do with this one. there's a difference and if you didn't notice General Zod wasn't a common villain, was a patriot, that had its methods it wasn't the generic villain that you see in every movie (that was A NICE TOUCH ON THE CHARACTER making him RELATABLE and smth I really liked about it, that it wasn't a common villain) you have the relationship of Zod-Jor-el, Jor-el wasn't a common scientist SOMETHING THAT MANY JUST DON'T GET IT. CALLING Jor-el just a scientist is a bit childish.
He also was Zod's friend (knew his weakness, etc..)and YOU NOTICED THAT IF YOU SAW THE MOVIE.
Then you have to notice that Zod wasn't the only villain of the movie. It was General Zod and his ARMY!!!!
When you have to build up a nice villain just look at Zod's message (it wasn't the only one, helloooo Faora) and the thing Zod made Superman do, that any other villain hadn't acieve to other hero in the cbms, and that my friend was what made villains great.
In fact Superman wasn't superior in fight with him. Again I think is a bit silly to compare them to the other two villains???
You build up a great villain and then lowered by a shot with the batpod? that was a nice build up? I liked Bane but the end of his character lowered his great things in the movie according to the nice character he was.

The thing is that in some cases the beat-up WORKS for the character. in others don't.

a random thug mops the floor with Bats in Batman '89 and he barely puts up a fight.

The thug was randomly tough as boiled boots. That happens to Batman, at times, as you would expect. In any case, its function in the story was to create the dynamic of Batman fighting his way up The Joker's dark tower in order to save the captive princess. Remember that this was before the days of automatic sequels, prequels, spinoffs and franchises; and that Batman had not yet been shown facing a serious physical challenge. It was probably better to give The Joker a random hard-ass henchmen in the mold of Bond villains, rather than writing a character like Bane into the story in a desultory role.

Just tell yourself that thug is Croc before he got eczema.

__________________"Myth and high culture have much in common. Each is concerned to idealise the human condition, to lift it free from contingencies". -Sir Roger ScrutonLoveFreedom?PENCE 2018

yeah I know.. I feel that thinking in that way is just a little nonsensical cause you can nitpick every character because every character has his own issues and if you come up with things like this that aren't a big deal but some makes a big deal will make your argument a little baseless.

I want batman to be a badass fighter that can take 10 guys at once, but I don't see the point in compairing with other previous incarnations that had other purpose and strenghts.

It'll be cool seeing Snyder handle the batman fights. They'll be pretty epic. But i dont really care about it to be honest. It's just a cherry on top, nothing that makes or breaks a film for me. Even in an action movie. As long as they get the point across that he kicks ass, ill enjoy it. But im sure Zack will go all the way with it.

I just don't get your comparisson. General Zod wasn't beated by SUPERMAN in the beginning so your comparisson is baseless cause the other two examples had nothing to do with this one.

You are correct there IS a difference, MoS was worse in that Zod was already beaten by someone that wasn't the protagonist, having your main antagonist punked out so early in the film kinda effects the stakes and tension in the movie. Especially for me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John-An

there's a difference and if you didn't notice General Zod wasn't a common villain, was a patriot, that had its methods it wasn't the generic villain that you see in every movie (that was A NICE TOUCH ON THE CHARACTER and smth I really liked about it, that it wasn't a common villain).

He came off pretty generic to me, he wanted to destroy the world and commit mass genocide, for what? for patriotic pride? What about common restraint? morality? Even if he didn't care about the billions of humans he had doomed, surely he would show any sort of sympathy for any remaining Kryptonian, regardless of who he was. It was an underwritten character, he came off as a tool who had no problem killing billions for a patriotism that he never really showed (just kept talking about) the least they could do was make him seem somewhat threatening.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John-An

you have the relationship of Zod-Jor-el, Jor-el wasn't a common scientist SOMETHING THAT MANY JUST DON'T GET IT. CALLING Jor-el just a scientist is a bit childish.
He also was Zod's friend (knew his weakness, etc..) and YOU NOTICED THAT IF YOU SAW THE MOVIE. .

But he was just a scientist, wasn't kryptonian society a deterministic one? Every kryptonian was born to fulfill a purpose in their society. Any way you cut it an army general getting beat in hand to hand combat by any non army person (no matter how good they are) is kinda suspect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John-An

Then you have to notice that Zod wasn't the only villain of the movie. It was General Zod and his ARMY!!!!
When you have to build up a nice villain just look at Zod's message (it wasn't the only one, helloooo Faora) and the thing Zod made Superman do, that any other villain hadn't acieve to other hero in the cbms, and that my friend was what made villains great.

I will admit Zod forcing Clark to kill him is a great villainous moment, heck it was so good it turned viewers against him! (let alone the backlash in the film universe itself) but it would have been far more effective if Zod was either a more sympathetic character or his relationship with Clark was better written, his despair after the fact felt incredibly forced.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John-An

In fact Superman wasn't superior in fight with him. Again I think is a bit silly to compare them to the other two villains???
You build up a great villain and then lowered by a shot with the batpod? that was a nice build up? I liked Bane but the end of his character lowered his great things in the movie according to the nice character he was.

Yeah I'll give you that, that entire Talia/Bane thing is probably the worst thing in a movie that I love, talk about cutting a characters balls off. Kinda showed you, no matter how badass a man can get, you can always get undermined by a beautiful woman.

Just read the first sentence seeing you didn't understood. Then saying that the beaten up was for not the protagonist and that made automatically worse??? Also not seeing that the guy had connection to Zod that you may noticed when you "saw" the movie. Not to mention just seeing what you want to see, and calling Zod generic? One of the things that made this villain a great one was not BEING A GENERIC ONE
Those things made me no to continue reading... And of course I won't continue this discussion. You can think what you want buddy

You are correct there IS a difference, MoS was worse in that Zod was already beaten by someone that wasn't the protagonist, having your main antagonist punked out so early in the film kinda effects the stakes and tension in the movie. Especially for me.

He came off pretty generic to me, he wanted to destroy the world and commit mass genocide, for what? for patriotic pride? What about common restraint? morality? Even if he didn't care about the billions of humans he had doomed, surely he would show any sort of sympathy for any remaining Kryptonian, regardless of who he was. It was an underwritten character, he came off as a tool who had no problem killing billions for a patriotism that he never really showed (just kept talking about) the least they could do was make him seem somewhat threatening.

But he was just a scientist, wasn't kryptonian society a deterministic one? Every kryptonian was born to fulfill a purpose in their society. Any way you cut it an army general getting beat in hand to hand combat by any non army person (no matter how good they are) is kinda suspect.

I will admit Zod forcing Clark to kill him is a great villainous moment, heck it was so good it turned viewers against him! (let alone the backlash in the film universe itself) but it would have been far more effective if Zod was either a more sympathetic character or his relationship with Clark was better written, his despair after the fact felt incredibly forced.

Yeah I'll give you that, that entire Talia/Bane thing is probably the worst thing in a movie that I love, talk about cutting a characters balls off. Kinda showed you, no matter how badass a man can get, you can always get undermined by a beautiful woman.

My reasoning for the hilighted part, is that since Jor-El worked for the Kryptonian government he might have had some training in hand to hand combat. Also he was fighting for his family.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by zryson

There are always tons of things to enjoy and do. Every day can be an adventure.

I really want to know what others would have done to Bane other than what we saw. How would you kill him? Sticking him in prison is a stupid answer, that just wouldn't work, just like throwing Zod back in the Phantom Zone. But how would one end Bane's character if they didn't like Catwoman cutting him down, blowing him away with a missile to the chest (pretty much). Which i thought was a fitting end to this version. Very abrupt, which is what he deserved.

My reasoning for the hilighted part, is that since Jor-El worked for the Kryptonian government he might have had some training in hand to hand combat. Also he was fighting for his family.

Not to mention that Zod was his friend. He know his weakness because maybe he teached Jor-el how to fight, as we saw when he fought with Superman. But just seeing that some naming Jor-el just a scientist made me laugh and ask if they really saw the movie

One thing that annoys me about MOS is how they always talk in interviews that Zod and Jor-El were good friends in the universe, but they barely (if ever) reference that at all in the movie. I can't even think of a single scene where they make a point to show or tell us that they're friends or get along, or once got along.

Not to mention that Zod was his friend. He know his weakness because maybe he teached Jor-el how to fight, as we saw when he fought with Superman. But just seeing that some naming Jor-el just a scientist made me laugh and ask if they really saw the movie

It was kinda obvious from watching MOS that Jor-El was somewhat of an action man. He rode a dragon for gods sake.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by zryson

There are always tons of things to enjoy and do. Every day can be an adventure.